Question for September 9: The Prologue to The Canterbury Tales, pp. 229-38
The Summoner and the Pardoner are both church officials. Choose one of the two and discuss how Chaucer's description of him hints at his disapproval of how he carries out his job.
In the Pardoner’s prologue, the pardoner is about to give his sermon as he is drinking “Cornish ale.” He begins to promise salvation to others but then quickly announces his demise. He takes the offerings from the people and keeps them for himself. Chaucer describes him as being greedy in the prologue. He pulls out a bag of “relics” and admits to the men that they are fake as well as a sheep bone. He says that all sermons are of evil intentions and that no one performs them to correct sin. Chaucer describes the pardoner as being a “janglere (chatterer) and a Goliardais (who made fools out of the men.” He also describes him as always using obscenities and drinking. However, even though Chaucer convicts the Pardoner of all these things, the Pardoner admits to all of them. He bluntly confesses to be greedy, being a fraud, and being deceitful. The ironic thing about the Pardoner is that he preaches against all of the crimes that he himself has committed. He blames his corruption as some sort of sacrifice for others to not be the way he is. Yet, the Pardoner is still driven by money and would never change his actions. I believe the Pardoner’s tale is very bizarre both because the Pardoner says “greed is the root of all evil,” however, he will never change as he is telling his congregation to. This tale just goes to show that you must practice what you preach and simply not be a hypocrite.
There are many instances in the Summoner’s prologue in which Chaucer hints of his great dislike towards the character. Chaucer’s physical description of the Summoner immediately gives the indication of his distaste. The Summoner is described as having narrow eyes and a face full of pimples and boils, perhaps indicating that the Summoner has leprosy. Chaucer also states that, “Of his visage children were aferd,” meaning children feared his face (630). I do not believe that Chaucer would describe the Miller in such a way unless he was indeed as ugly on the inside as he was the outside. The Summoner also drinks a good deal and is very unpleasant to be around when he is drunk. He also attempts to make himself appear well educated and shows off by speaking Latin, even though he only knows a few phrases. A Summoner’s duty, back in the day, was to bring people before the ecclesiastical courts for committing sins against the church. Ironically, and much like the Pardoner, the Summoner has most likely committed many of the sins in which he calls judgment upon. The Summoner is fairly similar to the Pardoner in that he is an extraordinarily greedy human being and bribes many people into paying fines for their sins. Chaucer claims if the Summoner happened upon a fellow he would teach him, “a mannes soule were in his purse,” (668). Basically, the Summoner would threaten a person with excommunication unless he or she paid up. I certainly do not blame Chaucer for disliking the Summoner for he is certainly vile.
Chaucer seems to not like the Miller. When he is first described, it stated that, "He was a janglere and a Goliardais,"(p232/l562). Which means is a chatterer who is a tellar of "ribald" stories which were mostly obscenities. A millers job in that time period was not to be a shrewd person, but to be one that provides a vital service to the people of his community. Yet, Chaucer divulges that this man was not a so called "servant" to the community. He instead, "...coude he stelen corn and tollen thries"(p232/L564). Which means he took three times the deduction from the lawful percentage of grain. He was steeling from the mouths of his people, to put more money in his own pocket. The miller is described in his appearance as a short, stalky individual who would not heave of (it's) hinge. On his arm he wore a shield and a sword upon his belt. He was clad in beautiful clothing and made his status known. I am with Chaucer fully on his conviction of the Miller, for who can respect a man who would take food out of the mouths of women and children to line his own pockets of greed.
It's very obvious that Chaucer was not too fund of the Pardoner. The duties of a Pardoner was to sell indulgences and relics, and preach. Unfortunately, Chaucer described the Pardoner as a selfish, money-hungry, hypocrite. His one and only wish is to fulfill his very deepening pockets. He collected money to get a profit for himself. The Pardoner could sing and preach whenever he found himself in a church. The thing is, he would preach about things that would only contradict himself. The Pardoner is described as a currupt man who would do anything to get his money and think that he would get away with it. He sells pardons to sinners (a piece of paper signed by the Pope that gives the forgiveness of their sins). He lies about carrying holy relics and collects money from the people he tricks. It is quoted as, "For in his male he hadde a pilwe-bee, which that he saide was Oure Lady veil". He also claims to have Jesus Christ's bones (which were actually pig bones), and is quoted, "Upon the see, til Jesu Crist him hente. He hadde a croise of laton, ful of stones, And a glas he hadde pigges bones, But with the relikes whan that he foond A poore person dwelling upon lond". When he was giving his prologue, one thing he was genuine about was telling the congregation that he preaches solely to get money, not to correct sin. By preaching, he feels that he can get revenge on anyone who offended him. Sounds like the Pardoner had some mean intentions as well.
The Pardoner from the standpoint of Chaucer was trickery and lies. Everything else he was, it was either a lie or a genuine story telling way to sell even seems to be a against the church even though he was doing the duties he was told, especially while collecting money from the people with troubles. The Pardoner was a sinner deeply himself maybe he knew or maybe he didn't. But from all the pardons he made people sign and everything he did to free the sins of the sinners was all a liar and everyone believe him because of his dominant hierarchy position over these men and women.
As decaff13 states in his or her blog post, Chaucer doesn’t care too much for the Summoner and makes it evident through his prolonged berating of the Summoner’s physical appearance. Chaucer mentions one negative flaw in the Summoner’s face after another, and he dislikes him so much that he even sneaks in the fact that the Summoner has venereal diseases through the collection of ointments he owned. Though Chaucer mentions that his skin is so wretched that, “Ne oinement that wolde cleanse and bite that him might helpen of his whelks white” which could be taken as exaggeration from Chaucer to insult him even further or as a metaphor for the Summoner’s twisted sins that were too horrid to be cleansed. Chaucer continues to debase the Summoner through humiliating stories and facts about him like that he would drink too much and start making nonsensical cries and then become even further inebriated and start speaking nothing but Latin, which Chaucer uses as a segue to inform us that the Summoner doesn’t have the intelligence to learn Latin, but that he was just repeating phrases he’d heard like a parrot with no real understanding of the language. Chaucer also reveals that the Summoner is having sexual relations with women even though he is a clergy member when he writes, “Ful prively a finch eek coude he pulle.” And lastly Chaucer’s loathing shines through in a simple line after he relates that the Summoner talks about the purse being the “Ercedekenes helle” he tells the readers that he knows the Summoner is lying.
Summoner's portion of the General Prologue by describing his physical appearance and his "health" in such a nasty way; almost as if he has a personal reason to dislike the Summoner. As he continues to talk about him, he begins to point out his flaws as a church official as he did with the rest of the characters in the story. I believe that he was harder on the Summoner because as he has the most judgmental job. He is the one who summoned the people. As I read the footnote on the Summoner I found out that during that time Summoners became corrupt. They began to spy on people and blackmail people. So I believe that there was no personal dislike towards the Summoner, but I do believe that Chaucer pointed out all of his flaws because the Summoner points out everyone else’s flaws. The part in which Chaucer says “…and excususen him at the fulle; Ful prively a finch eek coude he pulle.” (653-654) he is showing that the same thing he accuses other people of doing, and the things he is blackmailing other people of, he himself does. So in a sense he is saying how he still is a nobody because he has the title of “Summoner.”
In the Pardoner’s prologue, the pardoner is about to give his sermon as he is drinking “Cornish ale.” He begins to promise salvation to others but then quickly announces his demise. He takes the offerings from the people and keeps them for himself. Chaucer describes him as being greedy in the prologue. He pulls out a bag of “relics” and admits to the men that they are fake as well as a sheep bone. He says that all sermons are of evil intentions and that no one performs them to correct sin. Chaucer describes the pardoner as being a “janglere (chatterer) and a Goliardais (who made fools out of the men.” He also describes him as always using obscenities and drinking. However, even though Chaucer convicts the Pardoner of all these things, the Pardoner admits to all of them. He bluntly confesses to be greedy, being a fraud, and being deceitful. The ironic thing about the Pardoner is that he preaches against all of the crimes that he himself has committed. He blames his corruption as some sort of sacrifice for others to not be the way he is. Yet, the Pardoner is still driven by money and would never change his actions. I believe the Pardoner’s tale is very bizarre both because the Pardoner says “greed is the root of all evil,” however, he will never change as he is telling his congregation to. This tale just goes to show that you must practice what you preach and simply not be a hypocrite.
ReplyDeleteThere are many instances in the Summoner’s prologue in which Chaucer hints of his great dislike towards the character. Chaucer’s physical description of the Summoner immediately gives the indication of his distaste. The Summoner is described as having narrow eyes and a face full of pimples and boils, perhaps indicating that the Summoner has leprosy. Chaucer also states that, “Of his visage children were aferd,” meaning children feared his face (630). I do not believe that Chaucer would describe the Miller in such a way unless he was indeed as ugly on the inside as he was the outside. The Summoner also drinks a good deal and is very unpleasant to be around when he is drunk. He also attempts to make himself appear well educated and shows off by speaking Latin, even though he only knows a few phrases.
ReplyDeleteA Summoner’s duty, back in the day, was to bring people before the ecclesiastical courts for committing sins against the church. Ironically, and much like the Pardoner, the Summoner has most likely committed many of the sins in which he calls judgment upon. The Summoner is fairly similar to the Pardoner in that he is an extraordinarily greedy human being and bribes many people into paying fines for their sins. Chaucer claims if the Summoner happened upon a fellow he would teach him, “a mannes soule were in his purse,” (668). Basically, the Summoner would threaten a person with excommunication unless he or she paid up. I certainly do not blame Chaucer for disliking the Summoner for he is certainly vile.
Chaucer seems to not like the Miller. When he is first described, it stated that, "He was a janglere and a Goliardais,"(p232/l562). Which means is a chatterer who is a tellar of "ribald" stories which were mostly obscenities. A millers job in that time period was not to be a shrewd person, but to be one that provides a vital service to the people of his community. Yet, Chaucer divulges that this man was not a so called "servant" to the community. He instead, "...coude he stelen corn and tollen thries"(p232/L564). Which means he took three times the deduction from the lawful percentage of grain. He was steeling from the mouths of his people, to put more money in his own pocket. The miller is described in his appearance as a short, stalky individual who would not heave of (it's) hinge. On his arm he wore a shield and a sword upon his belt. He was clad in beautiful clothing and made his status known. I am with Chaucer fully on his conviction of the Miller, for who can respect a man who would take food out of the mouths of women and children to line his own pockets of greed.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous above is Queso. Wont let me put my name on the blog?
ReplyDeleteIt's very obvious that Chaucer was not too fund of the Pardoner. The duties of a Pardoner was to sell indulgences and relics, and preach. Unfortunately, Chaucer described the Pardoner as a selfish, money-hungry, hypocrite. His one and only wish is to fulfill his very deepening pockets. He collected money to get a profit for himself. The Pardoner could sing and preach whenever he found himself in a church. The thing is, he would preach about things that would only contradict himself. The Pardoner is described as a currupt man who would do anything to get his money and think that he would get away with it. He sells pardons to sinners (a piece of paper signed by the Pope that gives the forgiveness of their sins). He lies about carrying holy relics and collects money from the people he tricks. It is quoted as, "For in his male he hadde a pilwe-bee, which that he saide was Oure Lady veil". He also claims to have Jesus Christ's bones (which were actually pig bones), and is quoted, "Upon the see, til Jesu Crist him hente. He hadde a croise of laton, ful of stones, And a glas he hadde pigges bones, But with the relikes whan that he foond A poore person dwelling upon lond".
ReplyDeleteWhen he was giving his prologue, one thing he was genuine about was telling the congregation that he preaches solely to get money, not to correct sin. By preaching, he feels that he can get revenge on anyone who offended him. Sounds like the Pardoner had some mean intentions as well.
The Pardoner from the standpoint of Chaucer was trickery and lies. Everything else he was, it was either a lie or a genuine story telling way to sell even seems to be a against the church even though he was doing the duties he was told, especially while collecting money from the people with troubles. The Pardoner was a sinner deeply himself maybe he knew or maybe he didn't. But from all the pardons he made people sign and everything he did to free the sins of the sinners was all a liar and everyone believe him because of his dominant hierarchy position over these men and women.
ReplyDeleteAs decaff13 states in his or her blog post, Chaucer doesn’t care too much for the Summoner and makes it evident through his prolonged berating of the Summoner’s physical appearance. Chaucer mentions one negative flaw in the Summoner’s face after another, and he dislikes him so much that he even sneaks in the fact that the Summoner has venereal diseases through the collection of ointments he owned. Though Chaucer mentions that his skin is so wretched that, “Ne oinement that wolde cleanse and bite that him might helpen of his whelks white” which could be taken as exaggeration from Chaucer to insult him even further or as a metaphor for the Summoner’s twisted sins that were too horrid to be cleansed. Chaucer continues to debase the Summoner through humiliating stories and facts about him like that he would drink too much and start making nonsensical cries and then become even further inebriated and start speaking nothing but Latin, which Chaucer uses as a segue to inform us that the Summoner doesn’t have the intelligence to learn Latin, but that he was just repeating phrases he’d heard like a parrot with no real understanding of the language. Chaucer also reveals that the Summoner is having sexual relations with women even though he is a clergy member when he writes, “Ful prively a finch eek coude he pulle.” And lastly Chaucer’s loathing shines through in a simple line after he relates that the Summoner talks about the purse being the “Ercedekenes helle” he tells the readers that he knows the Summoner is lying.
ReplyDeleteSummoner's portion of the General Prologue by describing his physical appearance and his "health" in such a nasty way; almost as if he has a personal reason to dislike the Summoner. As he continues to talk about him, he begins to point out his flaws as a church official as he did with the rest of the characters in the story. I believe that he was harder on the Summoner because as he has the most judgmental job. He is the one who summoned the people. As I read the footnote on the Summoner I found out that during that time Summoners became corrupt. They began to spy on people and blackmail people. So I believe that there was no personal dislike towards the Summoner, but I do believe that Chaucer pointed out all of his flaws because the Summoner points out everyone else’s flaws. The part in which Chaucer says “…and excususen him at the fulle; Ful prively a finch eek coude he pulle.” (653-654) he is showing that the same thing he accuses other people of doing, and the things he is blackmailing other people of, he himself does. So in a sense he is saying how he still is a nobody because he has the title of “Summoner.”
ReplyDelete